Is your belief based on faith, logic, or both?

1. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   Mark
   
   "This only works if you redefine the words to suit yourself - as you have now done."
   
   I thought you were intelligent enough not to make faith based comments without reading first. I see you understand logic real well. Nothing you do separates you from a religionist. You consistently make faith based assumptions with no logic required. Have you even been reading the thread or did you just have an "oops" in not reading where I said I wasn't redefining, I was adding to what it left out. Now, instead of making your silly assumptions, use logical thought to explain how I am wrong for saying emotions interfers logic. I don't think you can. I noticed you didn't have an arguement for the examples I used.   
   
   "Using logic after the event to support a faith based belief makes it illogical."
   
   Again, either you can't read or you choose not to so you can believe what you want to believe. I clearly stated that I use logic before faith. I also stated that they are both blind if not properly balanced. Read. I know it's hard to do when the words disagree with you. It's called losing the arrogance of your elitist belief to be humble to comprehend what goes against your belief.
   
   "But - this seems to be what all the believers do as they cannot survive by faith alone."
   
   I can't speak for all believers. I will say I think a lot use faith before logic. I think it takes logic and faith to be balanced and survive.
   
   "They keep telling me that my faith that I can ride a bike etc etc is exactly the same as having faith that you are going to live for ever - and just as logical."
   
   I think they can be related, ones just physical and the other is mental. They do both require faith, just on different levels. I think the bike requires logic and faith while some religions only require faith. 
   
   "Like you marine - they resort to semantics. Which is illogical and begs the question why you need to do this?"
   
   Why do I need to do what? Learn? I like to learn about myself and others. It's not done with emotional comments written to protect pride and arrogance.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You are not attempting to learn. You are using semantics to make a point. This is not learning.
      
      And just because I do not necessarily describe the logical thought process that goes into a statement - does not mean there is none behind it.
      
      You have spent the bulk of this thread arguing with people over  semantics and the fact that you are redefining the terms "logic" and "faith" to suit a new paradigm and definition. Sadly this causes communication issues.
      
      I do not see an intelligence at work - controlling, creating and managing the universe.
      
      Semantics again.
      
      Why do you need to do that? Is it just for the argument?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         "Redefining logic"  Nail on the head, right there.  A vain and impossible task.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Can you not read? Where did I redefine logic? I still notice you have no logical arguement of how and why I am wrong. You are just here to make friends by assumptive agreements right?

            replyreport
2. 62

   prettydarkhorseposted 14 years ago

   OMG, this thread is till alive, good day to all of you here..

   replyreport
3. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   Mark
   
   "You are not attempting to learn. You are using semantics to make a point. This is not learning."
   
   I learn something new everytime you, someone else, or myself makes a comment. I learn even when people disagree with me unlike yourself. I just ask for a logical explanation of why they disagree. I do not appreciate yours or anyone else faith based assumptions when they claim to be logical.
   
   What are the semantics I am using to make a point and what point am I making? The point that the dictionary left out that emotions are separated for logical thought? You still disagree with no logical explanation of why you disagree?
   
   "And just because I do not necessarily describe the logical thought process that goes into a statement - does not mean there is none behind it."
   
   You are right, but it's not logical when you make faith based assumptions on a constant basis. This doesn't logically mean you couldn't be lying.   
   
   "I do not see an intelligence at work - controlling, creating and managing the universe"
   
   Do you think i'm trying to make you a believer? You are wrong again. Believe whatever you want, I am not dependent on you or anyone else agreeing with me or I would have stopped typing a long time ago. Are you still saying you aren't intelligent? Not much faith in yourself.
   
   
   
   "Semantics again.
   
   Why do you need to do that? Is it just for the argument?"
   
   
   What are you talking about? You think it's a diversion when I explain how emotions play into logic?

   replyreport
4. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   I would like to take a vote of how many think emotions do or don't effect logic.
   
   
   Emotions do effect logic: 1
   
   
   Emotions don't effect logic: 2

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The definition of logic:
      
          *
            Logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true. N-UNCOUNT
                o
                  Apart from criminal investigation techniques, students learn forensic medicine, philosophy and logic.
          *
            The logic of a conclusion or an argument is its quality of being correct and reasonable. N-UNCOUNT
                o
                  I don't follow the logic of your argument. + 'of'
                o
                  There would be no logic in upsetting the agreements. + 'in' v-ing
          *
            A particular kind of logic is the way of thinking and reasoning about things that is characteristic of a particular type of person or particular field of activity. N-UNCOUNT oft adj N with supp
                o
                  The plan was based on sound commercial logic.
      
      Logic is a way of reasoning which is completely emotionless.
      
      Yes - I agtee that a lot of faith based believers attempt to apply logic after the fact. This is not logic. This is semantics.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Lol now you admit logic is reasoning that is completely emotionless? Do you want me to change your vote? I agree, I think faith before logic is dangerous.
         
         How am I redefining logic when I say the dictionary left that part out? Does me adding that contradict any other definitions of logic or go with them? Is the dictionary absolute?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Now you have confused me because I have seen you arguing that logic and emotional faith can go hand in hand.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I think they can and do. A respectful example. You put logical thought in the gathering of mental and physical evidence that evolution is possibly absolute. I think you first used logic to gather your belief of evolution and then put faith into that belief. I consider faith the emotional side of belief while the logical side separates from emotions. I think a logical balance would be logic and then faith. However, I think that faith can keep attachments to a belief contradicting the ability to learn and grow on a daily basis to those that different belief.  I think self-awareness also plays into whether or not a person is attached to a belief.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  No. I am attached to evolution only as the best current explanation we have as to where humans came from. I have no emotional attachment to it as such other than it's ability to prove the Christians wrong.
                  
                  I came to the conclusion that it is a reasonable explanation using logical deductions and observations of the facts, but I will discard it immediately of some one has some new evidence to offer.
                  
                  I am absolutely open to a new idea. Except, "It was magic."

                  replyreport
5. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   How can the bible or any other religious text be believed as absolute when the dictionaries that define the words in them aren't absolute?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      They cannot.
      
      But - as you are discovering - life without absolutes is difficult for most people.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I agree, much more stressful to live logical than faithful. Thats why I am open to both.

         replyreport
      2. 74

         Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well Stated.

         replyreport
   2. 74

      Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Very Good Insight. If the 'dictionaries' were all the same, but the way humanity uses the words is different, in the example of 'slang'. Then once again the communication that is being attempted, may or may not be successful.
      and I quote, "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant."   

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks. This brings me back to the thought that all words are just the materials we use to make us think we know what we are talking about when I think they could be considered an illusion.

         replyreport
      2. 74

         Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I wanted to add, In communicating we need to understand how we see words. The human brain sees in pictures, that are assigned words(as children). When you think of the word fork your brain pictures a fork. Each person sees a little bit different fork. When we get to complex ideas, each person has a vision of what a concept means to them, each person's concpet vision is at least a little bit different than everyone elses. So when we talk to one another: person 1 sees the concept vision in their mind, attaches the learned words they assigned to the concept vision, which are relayed to another person who takes the words and translates them into their concept vision,(that the 2nd person has assigned to the relayed words). The 2nd person's concept vision is probably different from the 1st person's concept vision. So the resulting communication may actually be the communication of two completely different things, even though they both know and understand the words that were used. Understand?? 

         replyreport
         1. 59

            marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I do. Well said.

            replyreport
6. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   marinealways24 wrote:
   
   I think they can and do. A respectful example. You put logical thought in the gathering of mental and physical evidence that evolution is possibly absolute. I think you first used logic to gather your belief of evolution and then put faith into that belief. I consider faith the emotional side of belief while the logical side separates from emotions. I think a logical balance would be logic and then faith. However, I think that faith can keep attachments to a belief contradicting the ability to learn and grow on a daily basis to those that different belief.  I think self-awareness also plays into whether or not a person is attached to a belief.
   
   Mark
   
   "No. I am attached to evolution only as the best current explanation we have as to where humans came from. I have no emotional attachment to it as such other than it's ability to prove the Christians wrong."
   
   Thank You for explaining your belief. If evolution was ruled a hoax tommorrow, you wouldn't at all be irratated that you have put so much time into studying evolution? I agree with you that evolution is much more logical and explanatory that religions idea of existence however I have no faith in either.
   
   "I came to the conclusion that it is a reasonable explanation using logical deductions and observations of the facts, but I will discard it immediately of some one has some new evidence to offer."
   
   I think we all have new evidence everyday when keep our minds open. Evidence to what, I don't have a clue. lol
   What kind of evidence do you mean?
   
   "I am absolutely open to a new idea. Except, "It was magic.""
   
   If you were absolutely open to new ideas, how could you rule magic out and have an exception?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "It was magic" is not an explanation. It's a cop out and an easy answer, because it is not an answer. It means nothing. It is unprovable, untestable and does not really explain anything.
      
      And no - I would not be upset if a more reasonable explanation came along, but "having faith," in evolution is not the same as "having faith" that it was magic. There is measurable proof.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Alright, I think you are right on the magic part. Good explanation.
         
         I think you are right on the second part as well. I would just throw in again that I don't think either are absolute. I do disagree that evolution doesn't require faith. It took faith in the idea to put the idea into action in search of evidence. If there was no faith it wasn't true, people would give up trying to further explain it. I think just because one requires evidence to have faith and the other doesn't, I still think each require faith to believe them. If it's looked at as purely logic to define evolution, I think there is faith that the logic is correct.

         replyreport
7. 80

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   I am also open to any new ideas and conclusions. As Mark said, no emotional attachment.
   I agree new knowledge comes daily, and so my beliefs change daily, so should this be hard to do? Take on a different opinion to the one you hold?
   Only if you have strong emotional attachments to what you believe, and even then, personal growth although painful is called for to overcome the emotions and replace old beliefs with newer more logical ones.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Earnest, How are you. I agree that no emotions should be put into logical thought. I disagree that Mark said it. I said it, he disagreed, then agreed. As far as a belief, I agree it is much easier to keep an open mind to new beliefs when the current belief doesn't have emotional attachments. I think logic may require faith that one has logic.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well I need faith in my car battery and that my car will start, but that faith is based on it starting the last 10,000 times.
         Faith in an invisible entity that is all powerful but does nothing, has no evidence at all for it's existence, and a perfectly logical reason for the emotional attachment causing the belief such as indoctrination and fear of death, (two big ones) that is blind faith and a belief of neediness rather than a logical belief!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I don't think faith is limited to religion or a belief in creation. I think faith is a natural thought process that everyone uses on a daily basis. I think in the car example, logic is based on the evidence that it has started 10,000 times and faith is the hope/prediction based on the logical evidence you gathered from the previous 10,000 times that the car will start 10,001 times. I think religion requires an unbalance of faith in comparison with logic. I think everyone uses both logic and faith, just unbalanced in some if not most. I agree that religion uses emotions to capture believers faith.

            replyreport
8. 80

   earnestshubposted 14 years ago

   Yes, well said. Mind you I also have faith that if I do not replace the battery next year, it is likely to stop working! Faith needs to take knowledge from more than one source to remain useful sometimes!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Earnest. lol I think it would be good logic to get a new battery if you have lost faith in the old one. I agree with you, everyones logic and faith or even lack of can be learned from when the mind is open. Great thoughts, thanks.

      replyreport
9. 59

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   Is there a such thing as a logical prediction? Doesn't a prediction contradict logic? I think a prediction could only be considered faith even though it can have logic behind the faith. Wouldn't this be logical faith? If the prediction was based on faith without logic, would this be faithful logic?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Why is prediction not logical.Take the weather for example ,we predict the weather based on what we have.The storm is moving east at 10 miles an hour so we can predict that if this continues it will be in a certain place in the next few hours or the next day.Totally logical, mathematics.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Predictions that entail the use of systems and mathmatics, statics and probility aren't what most people classify as 'predictions'. What most people are talking about in the use of the term is Clairvoyance, or magical forsight, an example of being a prophet comes to mind. Logical predictions like betting on horse races, is used all the time, so yes it exists, it just isn't what most people use the term for.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I agree it has a broad definition but one cannot categories predictions only for the prophets and mystics.
            They are able to see what someone else cannot ,its logical for them and illogical for someone else.
            
            When I decided to become a poet ,it was a very logical decision for me but many wouldn't understand and I as mocked and called illogical and insane.
            Some still abuse me .
            
            Each will have his own perspective and logic accordingly. An atheist will find a believer illogical and visa versa.

            replyreport
      2. 59

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I don't say it's not, I say I don't think it is. I think logic can lead to a faithful prediction. On the weather example, I think the current weather would be the evidence examined through logic leading you to the faithful prediction of what the weather will do in the future. Just because logic and faith was used to base the prediction doesn't mean the weather will follow the prediction.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            True it many not happen but that chance of it happening exists logically.
            I was a Navigating Officer in the Merchant Navy and weather is something quite unpredictable but we would take weather charts and predict it every day, every few hours  especially when we were near a storm.

            replyreport
10. 59

    Bovine Currencyposted 14 years ago

    logic is logic.  Why keep using the damn word marine.  It is just causing ridiculous confusion because whatever you think it is, nobody else knows.
    
    Well, maybe Mikel.  Atheism = logic... what on earth is this trash?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       What do you think about faith? Do you think everyone uses faith?
       
       It wasn't me that said atheism = logic. I think everyone uses both.
       
       
       I think logic is logic while everyone has a different logic. The confusion is caused because the words aren't absolute.

       replyreport
    2. 74

       Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Bovine Currencyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Hey, at least you can grin.  I like that.
          
          I cannot be bothered with marine anymore.
          
          

          replyreport
11. 59

    marinealways24posted 14 years ago

    Bovine
    
    "P.S.  I never argued that emotions were not separated from logic.  Try step down from your fantasy for a few moments, look back through this thread.  I am not your enemy.  My only gripe with you is the incorrect definition of logic."
    
    You agreed with Mark that I was redefining logic when i'm not. Stop playing silly. There isn't only one definition. Your definition isn't absolute. Doesn't mean it is wrong either. Sorry you can't understand that.
    
    I would like to talk about your beliefs now and see how logical you think you claim to be. What are you talking about teach me? You can't even learn yourself, you are scared to be wrong. Too much pride for you.

    replyreport
12. 57

    wesleyacarterposted 14 years ago

    people talking about God, faith and Logic.
    
    -
    
    God has nothing to do with either. GOd is not concerned with what you believe. What you believe may be wholly false.
    
    -
    
    God has little to do with faith or Logic. A man standing underneath a tidal wave with faith that he will not get wet, will find himself soaked. A man who tries to prove that God exists through measurement and logical determinism will find that his logic does not apply.
    
    -
    
    to understand God you must be everywhere at once. Even I am foolish to think that this is the answer...

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Where on earth do I begin with this?
       
       
       For starters you just told us it would be foolish to understand God. Yet you claim, (through your understanding no less, something you also claim is foolish) the following statements: that God is not concerned with faith or logic (even though you use exactly that approach in trying to get your point across).
       
       
       
       Then your hand must be sore because you spend half a dozen posts doing your own philosophy (which you readily admit to doing).
       
       
       
       To believe something is foolish!? You mean like your belief that "to believe something is foolish?" Or your belief that "philosophy is the absence of all-inclusive thought?" Or your belief that "philosophy negates discovery?" Or your belief that "God is both partial and impartial?"
       
       Let us make this very simple wesley...Do you believe in the validity of what your comments are stating?
       
       
       
       
       Then why are you explaining your system to us (complete with knowledge about how God is, judgements on the validity of other philosophies, etc).
       
       Also it is very odd when you state your belief that "when people write philosophy as a way to manipulate the thoughts of others" that it is a bad thing. Is this your philosophy?
       
       
       
       Wait a minute Wesley, you stated that anytime anyone tries to understand God he is foolish. Now you claim to know what God is like.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          you seem angry. if you have been reading, which it looks like you have, somewhere along the line, i said that I don't think anything I say is absolute truth. Also, i've never said anything with the intention of manipulating your or anyone else. if you want me start every sentence with "I think", "Maybe so" "this might not be true, but..." then i can do that to make you feel more comfortable.
          
          -
          
          And when did I say that I was not a fool?
          
          -
          
          i think my thoughts are valid, otherwise i wouldn't think them. my words as well, otherwise i wouldn't say them. if you don't think they are valid, you are free not to read them.
          
          -
          
          i think, Allan, that you should read a little slower. you seem like one who doesn't really listen, but waits for his turn to speak. why don't you posit your own views instead of simply attacking mine?

          replyreport
          1. 68

             Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Not at all, you seem to be a bit sensitive to criticism or when people show contradictory statements in your posts.
             
             
             
             What you claimed was that "I dont take anything as absolute" which of course is an absolute statement. Also you claimed that others are foolish if they try to understand God. So now you are stating this is not the case. Well then Wesley help me here:
             
             You claimed that God is not ceoncerned with what I believe. Is this true or are you now stating that you are not sure?
             
             
             
             
             I didnt state you did.
             -
             
             
             
             
             You mean like your comment that it is foolish to believe something and then your next claim that you believe in God?
             
             So which is it? Is it foolish to believe in something as you write? I believe in God Wesley. Would you agree with your earlier comment that this is foolish?
             
             My view: I am a Christian

             replyreport
             1. 57

                wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                that sounds a little less emotional. Okay let me begin.
                
                humans are contradictory creatures. you're a christian. the bible is full of contradiction. christianity, just like all religion, is ripe with contradiction. so let me say that contradiction is a human thing. If my statements seem contradictory, then that would denote some form of intelligence, that I am able to grapple different views at the same time. 
                
                -
                
                "i don't take anything as absolute" is not an absolute statement. It sounds contradictory, but implied is the negation of that absolution of the very statement itself. It would have been better said as "(I don't think this is absolutely true, but) I don't take anything as absolute." this implication came from previous statements.
                
                -
                
                i didn't say others were foolish to believe in God. I said belief itself is foolish (implied: without questions). i.e. Blind faith is foolish.
                
                -
                
                I don't think it is foolish that you believe in God. If you didn't aspire to debate with me and simply negated me instead of questioning, that would be foolish. Remove the "me" from the previous sentence if it makes you more comfortable.
                
                -
                
                belief without observation and questioning is foolish. therefore, it is the questions that I believe in. The discovery!

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   You are writing your phlosophy and the very same time you say philosophy is all noon sense??

                   replyreport
                   1. 68

                      Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Of course it is philosophy. The definition of philosophy:
                      
                      examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
                      school of thought: a particular system of thought or doctrine
                      guiding or underlying principles: a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge
                      
                      Stating that thoughts are not part of philosophy is ludicrous.
                      
                      Way too many self-defeating comments in wesley's posts...

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         Seriously.

                         replyreport
                      2. 57

                         wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         you seem to skip over the many instances I said "personal philosophy". I admit when i first got to this thread, i spoke with many implications. But my previous post about philosophy vs. personal philosophy - i stated there is a distinct difference.
                         
                         I am not attacking the idea of philosophy, my aim is toward its intentions.
                         
                         I said "philosophy is masturbation" but what I meant to say was "philosophy AS masturbation" - an incomplete statement.
                         
                         Bruce Lee once said that when he began martial arts, a punch was just a punch and a kick was just a kick. He then became an experienced artist and saw that there was a system to the punch and the kick: lead in, technique, angle, lines, speed, distance, accuracy, footwork, breaking ground. After becoming a "master", he found that a punch was just a punch, and a kick was just a kick. To let go of the system, he found his true calling as a martial artist. He then went on to create a system of principles - there's some contradiction for you!
                         
                         The point of that remark is to say, the many sects of philosophy - dealing with abstract, hypothetical and unnecessary content just for the gathering of information in order to facilitate celebrity or acclaim - are questionable to me.
                         
                         I never said philosophy and thought are detached from each other.

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                            Ok so some philosophies are fine and some are garbage?

                            replyreport
                            1. 57

                               wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                               yes.
                               
                               philosophy that appeals to universal truth - useful. Like the books you mentioned.
                               
                               philosophy that appeals to self-image, remains abstract, ornamentation as knowledge. That is garbage.

                               replyreport
                               1. 60

                                  mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                  Okay so good or real philosophy and philosophers are usefull.Forget it its fine.

                                  replyreport
13. 57

    wesleyacarterposted 14 years ago

    philosophy is not knowledge. it is the quest of man to create a system of thought in order to appreciate his value to other men. philosophy is masturbation.
    
    -
    
    thought is different. it can not achieve system in and of itself. system comes from outside of thought, governed by thought, to manifest in human terms.
    
    -
    
    philosophy is the absence of all-inclusive thought. limiting - the stuff of debate, the destruction of possibility. like belief - to believe something is foolish. it denies thought or contemplation. It negates discovery. belief as an end, and not as a means.
    
    -
    
    God, the universe, is partial and impartial, all inclusive.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You do realise you are writing your philosophy?

       replyreport
14. 57

    wesleyacarterposted 14 years ago

    yes. my personal philosophy.
    
    -
    
    i am not attempting to create a system by which you should think. i am merely expressing thoughts.
    
    -
    
    i refer to verbalism. thinks like absolutism. creationism. that denote a context by which to think.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       So only when you write philosophy its is corrcet but any one else writes it is wrong?

       replyreport
    2. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       lol You say you aren't trying to create a belief system and you write your thoughts on God as absolute. How do you claim to understand absolutes when you are scared to not think of God as absolute?

       replyreport
       1. 68

          Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Wesley has done something that I did not think was possible. He has broke fatfist's record for the most self-defeating comments I have seen here on hubpages.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             

             replyreport
       2. 57

          wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          i never mentioned anything about absolute. God being so or not. I never claimed to understand absolutes. Quite in fact, i said earlier that God is both partial and impartial, or in other words, absolute and devoid of the absolute.
          
          when did i ever say my thoughts or opinions were absolute?

          replyreport
          1. 59

             marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             lol, So you aren't a believer of God?

             replyreport
             1. 57

                wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                where are you getting this from? I just started a few sentences with "God is..."
                
                am I a believer of God? i believe God exists, thought the term God wouldn't be appropriate - but its the only term best understood.
                
                I think about God constantly. but i think that contrary to what i have been told, that God put me here not just to believe, but to discover. belief is limiting to me, and God is not limited.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Alright, what do or don't you believe as absolute?

                   replyreport
                   1. 57

                      wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      I don't take anything as absolute. if you are asking what I believe in, then i would say i believe in questions. I believe that questions - logical responses to illogical situations, questions about faith are especially important. I don't take anything as answer. To me, answers denote end, and nothing ever truly ends, i don't think.
                      
                      I do believe that God is something that I must discover moment by moment.

                      replyreport
                2. 61

                   Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Wow! Are you the smartest man alive? And why are you making our heads hurt here on Hubpages? I've noticed that no one here can really keep up with you, accept maybe Bovine when he first wakes up! You really got me thinking. Welcome again to hubpages.

                   replyreport
                   1. 57

                      wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      thanks. and no, i'm quite a simple person. i don't mean to hurt anyone's head, but I have plenty of left over Ibuprofen if anyone needs it.
                      
                      BOVINE IS A BEAST!!!!

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         Opps...I was talking about Mikel. I'm sorry about the mix up.

                         replyreport
                         1. 57

                            wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                            well i can't deny that i felt good for a second. lol

                            replyreport
                            1. 61

                               Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                               You're doing fine. You obviously rocked Allen's world for some reason.  Keep it up!

                               replyreport
15. 57

    wesleyacarterposted 14 years ago

    philosophy as closer to religion. where context is delegated, regulating the flexibility of the thought process.
    
    philosophy that attempts to answer questions before they are asked.

    replyreport
16. 57

    wesleyacarterposted 14 years ago

    no. when people write philosophy as a way to manipulate the thoughts of others. not personal philosophy.
    
    your personal philosophy, i can learn from it. i can read it, listen to it, take from it and grow from it.
    
    when you try to take philosophy as system, that's when it loses its discovery.
    
    -
    
    Do you think I am trying to be malevolent, self-important or narcissistic? you seem offended.

    replyreport
17. 68

    Allan Bogleposted 14 years ago

    One of the things I notice here is many posit self-defeating statements in order to justify their opinions/beliefs etc.
    
    The second thing that surprised me was how sensitive some are here when you disagree with them.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       well no one defeated me, especially not myself. i think you defeated yourself while reading and projected it on me.
       
       And I don't care that you disagree with me. I only care when you make it sound so personal. I never meant to hurt you Allan. Friends?

       replyreport
       1. 68

          Allan Bogleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Of course it is not personal, how was it personal friend? I didnt call you any names (was it not you claimed that to believe in something is foolish, invalidating anyone who does). I just disagree with some of your comments. When you state it is foolish to believe in something and then post half a dozen posts detailing your various beliefs, well then that is a self-defeating premise. Do you understand that when you claim it is foolish to believe in something that this is a belief of yours?
          
          when you make a claim that "to believe something is foolish" and then follow it with a dozen of your beliefs...well this is simply contradictory.
          
          remember, just because we disagree does not mean lack of respect or hard feelings. We just disagree, thats all

          replyreport
18. 59

    Jeramiposted 14 years ago

    wesleyacarter wrote:
    philosophy is masturbation
    
      I don't know if I agree or disagree with this statement, depending upon what you were thinking.
       Most People tend to forget the "great philosophers" were doing something like that. They had so much stuff goin off in their heads that they had to sort it out and categorize the information that was goin on in their heads. Their beliefs were absolute for them. They eloquently expressed their beliefs as absolute in their understanding. That is not to say that many of their beliefs did not sit comfortably with the majority of others.
       Just My thoughts any way. Sometimes I gotta sort stuff out that is goin on in my head too. I may need to throw some of it out after sorting.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       The great philosophers are in tune with the great spirit and have a higher purpose .They have been the foundation of mans intelligence,his guide ,his source of immense knowledge and their great works defy time and keep multiplying.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          it might just be me, but i don't think that a philosopher is any more tuned in than say, a monk or a peasant. Every life has its own truth.
          
          i think it is truth that defies time, and not a man's works. i think even when people are gone, truth will still remain.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             mohitmisraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Philosophy Bible, Quran , Bhagwat Gita, Guru Grant Sahib etc are on god the truth which defies time. Connect man to himself.

             replyreport
             1. 57

                wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I think one day, the bible will be gone, So will the Qu'ran and all other traces of man. but the truth sought in those books, through those books, the message. That will live on forever!

                replyreport
19. 57

    wesleyacarterposted 14 years ago

    let me say that I think there is a distinct difference between thoughts and philosophy.
    
    -
    
    I don't attempt to write philosophy, otherwise I would be doing what Mohitmisra said: categorizing, or in other words writing a book. What you are reading is just a thought stream. There is no system. As I answer questions and replies, I have to think before I write in order to respond to them, appropriately. If I had a philosophy, that response would be easy, because I wouldn't have to think, I would have my response categorized.
    
    -
    
    Personal philosophy is not non-sense. Simply saying "This is how I think" is different than saying "this is the way I think everyone should think." Now that is nonsense!
    
    -
    
    personal philosophy is subject to scrutiny and change, subject to chance. not simply antithesis or contradiction. it is multi-directional. Like scientific fact, philosophy (in the sense of manipulation by one to the masses) is a thing that creates only room for contradiction and not further discovery. It creates an authority, and I think it is authority that destroys intelligence.

    replyreport
20. 57

    wesleyacarterposted 14 years ago

    i feel that traditional philosophers would call me a fool.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Star Witnessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Some will find not all are students, .

       replyreport
       1. 57

          wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          but all certainly try to be teachers.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Star Witnessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             lol, touche,
             
             Have you considered poetry?  We welcome contradictions and nuanced complete/incomplete meanings.

             replyreport
             1. 57

                wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                poetry i once did consider
                but over years began to grow very bitter.
                i then became the singer for musical group
                and found lyrics to be my soul's chicken soup.
                now music is my heart's mainstay
                in sound there are endless words to say;
                like a picture, but more than a 1000 in store
                sadly, with poetry i find peace no more.
                
                
                wow, i felt like an idiot writing that haha

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Star Witnessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I get you.  "Our words misunderstand us." (Carolyn Kizer, poet)

                   replyreport
21. 59

    Jeramiposted 14 years ago

    I didn't mean to be condescending. I think that we all have a philosophy of life whether we are all aware of that fact or not. To assign absolute authority of another's is to surrender your own. I was saying that Plato and other wise men were working out THEIR own philosophy which held  truth for  many people.
       Sorry if it sounded like I was dissin you.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       THANK YOU!!! Jerami if you were a beautiful woman, i would kiss you.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Jeramiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Well we won't have to worry about that !
             A brotherly hug would be all right.

          replyreport
    2. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "To assign absolute authority of another's is to surrender your own."
       
       Well said Jerami, excellent thought. I don't think it's truly a persons individual belief when they follow anothers belief or give power to another to control their belief.

       replyreport
22. 70

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    You two guys are getting sad and I'll leave it at that.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Lol Are you better?

       replyreport
23. 59

    Guidemyspiritposted 14 years ago

    My religion, faith, and logic is in simplicity, compassion, patience and of course living life through moderation.

    replyreport
24. 60

    docrehabposted 14 years ago

    I think considering God exists (I personally believe this), and considering God is wiser than any of us, I dont think we can understand him with logic only. And it's not that hard to give faith in his existence as it's not hard to trust a surgery to take care of us...lol And it's fool to trust there's an odd of finding other beings in other planets with no proof at all and dont believe in the existence of a God we see in action daily through the life of our children, through nature, through miracles...
    Well, I personally think God being greater than any of us wont let us catch him through logic, we could think we are smarter lol So my faith is based only on faith...personally

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I just have one thing to add. If you have children, would you want them to ask questions and be smarter than you or would you want them to be content with what they know?

       replyreport
    2. 74

       Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I think talking with the atheists for a while might help broaden your horizons. I agree with most of what your saying. I'll say again, I believe logic gets us to where proof ends, and faith takes us the rest of the way.

       replyreport
25. 59

    Guidemyspiritposted 14 years ago

    You guys talk about God like he is separate from you, that is where you all lose.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       

       replyreport
    2. 57

       wesleyacarterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       well, if you truly believe we are inseparable from God, wouldn't it be impossible to talk about God as if he is separate from us? That statement is a little abstract.
       
       I think what you mean is, God is inseparable from us, and so, God is speaking to each of us, THROUGH each of us, as we are speaking to God. Are we just functions of God speaking to himself?

       replyreport
    3. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You know absolute truth right? I guess thats the only way you could make such a broad generalization is if you had faith you know absolute truth, correct?

       replyreport
       1. 70

          Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          

          replyreport
          1. 59

             marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Is this intelligent response? I guess you are being sarcastic with your smiley's to allude that I claim absolute truth when I have only claimed the opposite.

             replyreport
26. 59

    Guidemyspiritposted 14 years ago

    I'm not saying I know anything, and there isn't really anything to know.
    
    Just Be.

    replyreport
27. 59

    Guidemyspiritposted 14 years ago

    You claiming the opposite isn't being better. No one claims to have absolute truth and no one claims not to have it. Just being your Self is really all that you need to be, and for everything else there is the Master Card.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Many people claim to have absolute truth or religions and cults wouldn't exist. I agree that a persons own absolute is all that they need in the bigger picture of belief considering there is possibly no 1 absolute truth of belief for everyone.
       
       What do you have against Visa?

       replyreport
28. 59

    Guidemyspiritposted 14 years ago

    I don't have anything against Visa lol, was just making a joke. And like I said I don't think people need to take anything seriously or complicate things, I used to read many books about consciousness, God, Religions, Philosophy and all I learned from them is that people make things too complicated.
    
    So I learned to take it simple through compassion, simplicity, patience and moderation.

    replyreport
29. 59

    marinealways24posted 14 years ago

    I just thought about this. I think this is the root of the problem with so many wars over who or what or if there is a God. I think it starts from one stating their belief of God as an absolute when there could very well be no 1 absolute belief of a God or creation or lack of for everyone.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       well stated...

       replyreport
       1. 59

          marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Thank You.
          I wanted to add. If today was the worst day I have ever had. It would take more faith than logic in the prediction that tomorrow would be a better day.

          replyreport
30. 74

    Mikel G Robertsposted 14 years ago

    Hey Marine, do you remember that forum post about if you had to pick one song to represent you, what would it be? I can't find it...any suggestions?

    replyreport
    1. 59

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       lol, not a clue. Sorry.

       replyreport